Originally posted by jaywillI have already made it quite clear why it is not a legitimate proposal. The argument being put forward is that the result of any sequence of random actions is necessarily unlikely and therefore any result is an indicator that the sequence was designed. This is clearly a ridiculous argument which is why it is dressed up in hemoglobin and quantum tunneling in the hope that the listener will not know what is being talked about and will merely nod their head and try to look wise.
Its twhitehead's job to pursuade all of us that that's not a legitimate proposal, for some strange reason.
You have failed to explain how the argument differs from the above.
If you still think it is a legitimate proposal then show how your argument is different from my summary above.
Try to get to the core of the argument and not get caught up in details of examples like whether or not quantum tunneling is necessary for haemoglobin or whether or not Richard Gotts ideas have been proven.
If your argument is valid then it should be possible to apply it to any situation where apparently random events are taking place such as the role of a dice. If you disagree then explain why.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat is unreasonable about the proposition that because many of the properties of the universe have to have occurred within very narrow bands to make life (or galaxies or many other things) possible, that therefore the result that life (or galaxies or many other things) exist is non-random?
I have already made it quite clear why it is not a legitimate proposal. The argument being put forward is that the result of any sequence of random actions is necessarily unlikely and therefore any result is an indicator that the sequence was designed. This is clearly a ridiculous argument which is why it is dressed up in hemoglobin and quantum tunneling ...[text shortened]... tly random events are taking place such as the role of a dice. If you disagree then explain why.
6 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead==============================
I have already made it quite clear why it is not a legitimate proposal. The argument being put forward is that the result of any sequence of random actions is necessarily unlikely and therefore any result is an indicator that the sequence was designed. This is clearly a ridiculous argument which is why it is dressed up in hemoglobin and quantum tunneling ...[text shortened]... tly random events are taking place such as the role of a dice. If you disagree then explain why.
The argument being put forward is that the result of any sequence of random actions is necessarily unlikely and therefore any result is an indicator that the sequence was designed.
==========================================
I don't recognize that as being any point I was trying to make.
Gott's possibility for an infinite number of universes allowed some non-theists an opportunity. That opportunity was to argue that chance could produce a universe such as ours tailored for life - one out of many many without it. We happen to be in that one out of some huge number of universes, which supports life.
Logically plausible. But what evidence do we have for two, three, a thousand, a billion, a trillion, or infinite number of OTHER universes ?
ZILCH.
What evidence DO we have? One known universe that produced life with laws of physics seemingly ingeniously designed. The odds against which are so astronomical that it makes more sense to reason that it was designed that way purposely.
That is working from the available sample size of one universe that we know of.
Even leaving out the matter of life we have the laws of physics which one scientist discribes as seemingly ingeniosly designed - Superforce, by astrophysicist Paul Davies.
Maybe they wouldn't seem to be ingeniosly designed if we found 800 trillion other possible universes (ala astrophysicist Richard Gott) that had 800 trillion other random outcomes of possible laws of physics.
But we don't have them to sample. We only have one to sample. And I quoted one scientist who says that the laws of physics "seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design."
Twhitehead's job is to downplay this observation as much as possible. His Atheism requires that, not his science as he pretends, but his Atheism requires it.
Originally posted by no1marauderI have already explained it in detail several times.
What is unreasonable about the proposition that because many of the properties of the universe have to have occurred within very narrow bands to make life (or galaxies or many other things) possible, that therefore the result that life (or galaxies or many other things) exist is non-random?
What makes it unreasonable, is the fact that you are essentially claiming that life, galaxies and many other things that exists are all special and more importantly are special solely because they exist.
Such an argument is essentially equivalent to the claim that the result of a roll of a die is special because it is the result and therefore it is non-random.
Originally posted by jaywillYour back to the Gott straw man again. How many times must I say it. Forget Gott. He has nothing to do with your argument. When you started with hemoglobin, you never said anything about Gott. Then suddenly, when you were chalenged on your hemoglobin claim, then Gott appeared and universe sprouted other universes which you proceeded to deny evidence for. Its a straw man, plain and simple. You are arguing against a case that has not been made. Stop wasting your time.
Logically plausible. But what evidence do we have for two, three, a thousand, a billion, a trillion, or infinite number of OTHER universes ?
ZILCH.
What evidence DO we have? One known universe that produced life with laws of physics seemingly ingeniously designed.
I dispute that they are seemingly ingeniously designed.
The odds against which are so astronomical that it makes more sense to reason that it was designed that way purposely.
I have already pointed out that the odds against any result of a random event is necessarily high, so it does not make more sense to reason that it was designed that way purposely. There is no rational argument that should lead to that conclusion, and you yourself have stated quite clearly that you agree with me:
Originally posted by jaywill
I don't recognize that as being any point I was trying to make.
So please make up your mind.
Please think on it hard for a while.
That is working from the available sample size of one universe that we know of.
Again I will ask you - what do you mean by 'sample size'?
Even leaving out the matter of life we have the laws of physics which one scientist discribes as seemingly ingeniosly designed
I will give that scientist the benefit of doubt and say that it is possible that by 'seemingly' he meant 'those lacking a proper education can mistake it for'. He clearly does not say that there is a good reason to declare them ingeniosly designed. If he did infact mean what you are claiming then I would dispute it, whether he is a scientist or not.
Twhitehead's job is to downplay this observation as much as possible. His [b]Atheism requires that, not his science as he pretends, but his Atheism requires it.[/b]
My atheism has nothing to do with it. I can assure you that there are a lot of Christians who would agree with me. In fact anyone with and education in probability theory should agree with me. I have no need to 'down play' a scientists claim. I can simply declare him wrong. I would quite happily argue the point with him too if he was here in this forum. The truth is that you are trying to hide behind a quote from a scientist which was then 'interpreted' by someone else and then further interpreted by you, and now you cannot defend your own claim, and worse you cant even keep your claim straight from moment to moment, and you just can seem to help using the strawman of a guy named Gott.
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauder…What is unreasonable about the proposition that because many of the properties of the universe have to have occurred within very NARROW bands to make life (or galaxies or many other things) possible, that therefore the result that life (or galaxies or many other things) exist is non-random?.…(my emphasis)
What is unreasonable about the proposition that because many of the properties of the universe have to have occurred within very narrow bands to make life (or galaxies or many other things) possible, that therefore the result that life (or galaxies or many other things) exist is non-random?
Within “very NARROW bands” within what possible range of physical values?
The value of c (the speed of light) is about 2.99*10^8 m/s but, just for the sake of argument here, lets suppose it is EXACLY 2.99*10^8 m/s . Now lets suppose that it has been calculated that life is only possible if c is between, say. 2.8*10^8 and 3*10^8
That would be a “very NARROW band” within the range of physical values from, say, c=0 to c=10^100 -but how would we know that this is the POSSIBLE range of physical values for c and not, say, between 100 and 10^9 or, say, between 2.8*10^8 and 3*10^8 or even, say, “between“ (if that is the right word here) 2.99*10^8 m/s and 2.99*10^8 m/s ! ( -I.e. there isn’t a “range” of “possible” values but rather there can only be one “possible” value for c -the same one in our universe!) ?
Without knowing the range of “possible” values of each and every physical constant there is no mathematical way of judging the probability of the “coincidence” that the range of values was "set" (if "set" is the right word!) to be within the ranges that allow life in our universe so, for all we know, it could have been “inevitable” or “almost inevitable” that the values set within the favourable range.
7 edits
Should we assume that nonintelligent laws were responsible for the emergence of the human brain ?
Carl Sagan (not a Theist) writes:
"The information content of the human brain expressed in bits is probably comparable to the total number of connections among the neurons - about a hundred trillion bits. If written out in English, say, that information would fill some twenty million volumes, as many as in the world's largest libraries. The equivalent of twenty million books is inside the heads of every one of us. The brain is a very big place in a very small space ... The neurochemistry of the brain is astonishingly busy. The circuitry of a machine more wonderful than any devized by humans."
Curiously, Sagan would accept the low porbability of a series of prime numbers from radio signal from space as indication of intelligent origin. But to Sagan a system "more wonderful than any devised by humans" arose randomly by unintelligent natural selection.
Why wouldn't he recognize the evidence of intelligent origin for the design of the human brain ?
The above example of the information capacity of the brain is not an analogy. It is an mathematical identity according to information scientist Hubert Yockey of University of Berkeley.
"It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical."
[Hubert P. Yockey, "Self Organization, Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory,:" Journal of Theoritical Biology 91 (1981: 16.]
Twhitehead's job is to convince us that it is far more probable that unintelligent and random accidents are responsible for the information capacity and functionality of the human brain.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonBut surely the argument still stands?
[b]…What is unreasonable about the proposition that because many of the properties of the universe have to have occurred within very NARROW bands to make life (or galaxies or many other things) possible, that therefore the result that life (or galaxies or many other things) exist is non-random?.…(my emphasis)
Within “very NARROW bands” within ...[text shortened]... ve been “inevitable” or “almost inevitable” that the values set within the favourable range.[/b]
I was under the impression that there are many variables involved in the Universe (eg speed of light , gravity etc etc) that if they were different , even by a relatively small degree , would mean that life on earth as we know it could not exist.
I thought that it had been calculated that for the Universe to function as it is and give rise to human life there is a delicate interplay of physical and chemical values which would be highly unlikely to be arrived at through random chance.
Am I wrong to make such an assumption? What I have heard and read is that there are some very narrow bands involved and if any one of them were off by a small amount the Universe could easily not give rise to human life.
Ok , so even if I am only partially right on this it would seem to be very rational to conclude that human life in this Universe is a pretty darn improbable thing that would have been very unlikely to come about by random chance.
This is no proof of a creator but one thing I am sure of is this. If it had gone the other way and science had shown that there were many probable ways that human life could have come about even if physical laws had been diffferent - then I'm sure the whitey/hammy brigade would be saying that this is evidence that no "designer" is needed because random chance can easily give rise to humanity. They can't have it both ways though.
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywill…But to Sagan a system "more wonderful than any devised by humans" arose RANDOMLY by unintelligent natural selection. .…[/b](my emphasis)
Should we assume that nonintelligent laws were responsible for the emergence of the human brain ?
Carl Sagan (not a Theist) writes:
[b]"The information content of the human brain expressed in bits is probably comparable to the total number of connections among the neurons - about a hundred trillion bits. If written out in English, say, that informat ts are responsible for the information capacity and functionality of the human brain.
No, that wouldn’t be true (unless he has seriously misunderstood evolution like you have). The mutations that unintelligent natural selection selects for or against are random BUT unintelligent natural selection isn’t “RANDOM”. So it makes no logical sense to say that.
It is only creationists that claim that evolution says “we come about by pure random accident”.
Evolutionists don’t generally say nor think that because it is not ALL “random” because natural selection isn’t “RANDOM”.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeister…But surely the argument still stands?
But surely the argument still stands?
I was under the impression that there are many variables involved in the Universe (eg speed of light , gravity etc etc) that if they were different , even by a relatively small degree , would mean that life on earth as we know it could not exist.
I thought that it had been calculated that for the Universe t because random chance can easily give rise to humanity. They can't have it both ways though.
I was under the impression that there are many variables involved in the Universe (eg speed of light , gravity etc etc) that IF they were different , even by a relatively small degree , would mean that life on earth as we know it could not exist.
.…(my emphasis)
“IF” is the operative word here; what is the premise for the belief that they “could” have been different from what they are? Or more than “slightly” different from what they are?
I don’t think you read and understood my post judging from your statement here.
…I thought that it had been CALCULATED that for the Universe to function as it is and give rise to human life there is a delicate interplay of physical and chemical values which would be highly unlikely to be arrived at through random chance.
.…. (my emphasis)
How could that probability have “been CALCULATED” without any possible way of knowing the range of possible values each physical constant “could” have had or not even knowing that any of the physical constants “could” have had a value that is different from the ones that exist in our universe?
… Am I wrong to make such an assumption?..….
Correct.
…What I have heard and read is that there are some very narrow NARROW bands involved and if any one of them were off by a small amount the Universe could easily not give rise to human life. ..… (my emphasis)
Read my post again: “very NARROW bands” within what possible range of physical values?
Originally posted by jaywillRegarding information capacity:
Twhitehead's job is to convince us that it is far more probable that unintelligent and random accidents are responsible for the information capacity and functionality of the human brain.
Information capacity is merely the ability to store information. There are many ways to store information, but essentially, every physical property of the universe is stored information, all that remains is the ability to read it. An atom contains information, the number of protons, neutrons, electrons its exact position and velocity in the universe, and other properties.
Everything is an information store.
To conclude that something arose by a given means simply because it is an information store is irrational.
What is special about the brain regarding information is its ability to store information in clever ways and read out that information in a format useful to the brain. Quoting its capacity and pretending that it is an incredibly large number achieves nothing. I do not dispute that the brain is complex, I do not dispute that it is incredibly complex. But can jaywill prove to me that a typical lump of rock is not complex? What level of complexity will jaywill accept as being reasonable to arise from unintelligent and random accidents?
Jawills argument is essentially a claim that high levels of complexity cannot arise via unintelligent and random accidents. I dispute that as unfounded. I believe the sun is vastly more complex than the human brain and I see no reason whatsoever to assume that it came about by anything other than the laws of physics and unintelligent and random accidents.
The human brain however arose via the process of evolution, which is capable of producing very complex things. It is not necessary to waste time trying to wow us with figures of the information capacity of the brain, as the basic claim is that evolution does not lead to greater complexity (am I right jaywill). If this is the claim, then it is easily proved wrong. Once it is proved that complexity can be increased by a mere 1% over a given period, then given sufficient time, any level of complexity is achievable.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonActually, I have just noticed that the speed of light is closer to 3.00*10^8 m/s than 2.99*10^8 m/s so I should have said 3.00*10^8 m/s .
[b]…What is unreasonable about the proposition that because many of the properties of the universe have to have occurred within very NARROW bands to make life (or galaxies or many other things) possible, that therefore the result that life (or galaxies or many other things) exist is non-random?.…(my emphasis)
Within “very NARROW bands” within ...[text shortened]... ve been “inevitable” or “almost inevitable” that the values set within the favourable range.[/b]
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe flaw in your argument is that you are claiming that the current state of the universe (specifically human life) is somehow special. But nobody in this thread has given a reason why it is special. Jaywill tried to claim it was special by labeling it Zero, but later admitted that the label was arbitrary.
But surely the argument still stands?
I was under the impression that there are many variables involved in the Universe (eg speed of light , gravity etc etc) that if they were different , even by a relatively small degree , would mean that life on earth as we know it could not exist.
Next someone claimed that life was special, which even though there is no reason for such a claim, is nevertheless disputed successfully by Andrew Hamilton who points out that there could well be large possible ranges for all of the physical properties of the universe that would give rise to life.
You however are claiming that human life is special.
Are you willing to go a step further and notice that the current state of the universe includes knightmeister. Are you special too? Were the properties of the universe all fine tuned just right in order to ensure the existence of knightmeister? Do you see what a big ego you have and that it is your ego that creates the argument and not the probabilities?
If you think about it, just one small event in the past could have resulted in you not being born ie knightmeister as we know it would not exist. So are you of the opinion that we can conclude, based on that observation that every single event that brought your parents together was carefully fine tuned in order to ensure your birth?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou are right that I didn't read your post in full or understand the physics etc and I am joining this part of the thread late , however, I don't understand how your point is relevant.
[b]…But surely the argument still stands?
I was under the impression that there are many variables involved in the Universe (eg speed of light , gravity etc etc) that IF they were different , even by a relatively small degree , would mean that life on earth as we know it could not exist.
.…(my emphasis)
“IF” is the operative word here; ...[text shortened]... hasis)
Read my post again: “very NARROW bands” within what possible range of physical values?[/b]
If we know that the value of "X" in our universe is say 125 then why do we need to know what other possible values there are? All we need to know is what would happen to our universe if that value deviated from 125 by say 0.1%. My understanding was that the calculations showed that changing these values by very small amounts would have very serious consequences for the Universe.
Therefore , I don't see why we need to know about all the other possibilities because it wouldn't change a thing.
Even if it was proven that all the physical laws we know of can only possibly be of the value that they currently are and that life as we know it was inevitably we would still be left wondering why this was the case. We could ask how was it these physical laws just happen to be fixed at these values that produce human life. We could still speculate that it was pretty lucky that these values WERE fixed otherwise we would be in trouble.
To use an analogy , if we won millions playing dice because the dice came up 6 over and over again , and then we found out that the said dice was fixed to only produce 6 what might we think? We might say that we were not so lucky because throwing conscutive 6s was not a narrow band but actually a probability , but then again would we not think ourselves very lucky indeed to have come across such a dice ?
We could say that our "narrow band" was nowhere near as narrow as we once thought , but then we could still say that we were quite lucky to have a "narrow" band.